coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Nicosia.
5.  On 20 October 1987 the applicant filed a civil action in the District Court of Paphos against two private individuals and the Government requesting damages in respect of unlawful trespass to his property and the increased costs he incurred as a result.
6.  The pleadings were completed around February/March 1989. Subsequently the case was fixed twice for mention and then for hearing on 3 October 1989, at the parties’ request for a hearing date after the summer holidays. The hearing, however, was adjourned on the latter date following an application by the applicant to that effect.
7.  On 14 November 1989, following an application by the applicant, the court issued an order for an inspection to be carried out by the Land Registry Office. The case was left sine die pending the outcome of the inspection.
8.  On 8 January 1993 the Land Registry informed the court that their report was ready.
9.  Between 8 January 1993 and 18 March 1997 the case was adjourned several times. Once at the applicant’s request and three times due to the failure of his lawyer to appear before the court, once by one of the defendants, three times at the request of all parties and once by the court itself. Within this period, the court also dealt with, inter alia, an interlocutory application filed by the defendant Government on 12 October 1995 for the dismissal of the case on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. On 8 November 1995 the court dismissed this application. An appeal was lodged by the defendant Government with the Supreme Court which was withdrawn on 21 February 1997.
10.  On 18 March 1997 the case returned to the District Court of Paphos and was set for hearing on 30 June 1997. Following two adjournments, one at the applicant’s request and the other at one of the defendant’s request, the hearing of the case commenced on 10 December 1997.
11.  The hearing was completed on 22 October 1998. Within this period, approximately ten hearing sessions were held.
12.  On 20 September 1999 the district court delivered its judgment in favour of the applicant concerning his claims against the first two defendants and awarding him costs and nominal damages. The court dismissed the action in so far as the Government was concerned.
13.  On 1 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court.
14.  The appeal was heard on 24 April 2001 and on 26 June 2001 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal with costs to be paid by him.
4.  The applicants live in Mersin.
5.  On 27 March 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 14 October 1997 the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation of 1,503,941,200 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 25 May 1994, the date of the seizure of the plots by the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways.
7.  On 16 February 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.
8.  On 16 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants TRL 4,442,320,000 (approximately 7,694 euros (EUR), interest included.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Mersin.
5.  On 2 November 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 25 April 1997 the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation of 305,201,400 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 2 November 1993, the date of transfer of the title-deeds.
7.  On 23 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.
8. On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicant TRL 1,167,070,000, interest included.
5.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1969, 1951, 1961 and 1964 respectively and live in İzmir.
6.  On 2 June 1995 Nedim Öndeş, Arap Doğan, Ferhan Özçelik and Selhan Tekin were arrested and taken into custody by the Anti-Terror branch of the İzmir Security Directorate on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. On 6 June 1995 Yahya Kezer was arrested and taken into custody by the same police officers on the same grounds.
7.  On 14 June 1995 the applicants were brought before the İzmir State Security Court. The court ordered their remand in custody.
8.  On 10 July 1995 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing Yahya Keser and Nedim Öndeş of membership of an illegal organisation and the other applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that Yahya Keser and Nedim Öndeş be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 §2 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. In respect of the other applicants, the public prosecutor requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
9.  On 22 July 1997 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced Yahya Keser to fifteen years, Nedim Öndeş to fourteen years and seventeen months, Arap Doğan to two years and eleven months and Ferhan Özçelik and Selhan Tekin to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.
10.  On 7 July 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court for non-compliance with procedural rules.
11.  On 3 December 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced Yahya Keser to fifteen years’ imprisonment, Nedim Öndeş to fourteen years’ and seventeen months’ imprisonment and the other applicants to three years’ and nine months’ imprisonment.
12.  On 18 October 1999 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court. On 18 November 1999 the judgment of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the İzmir State Security Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Wiśniowa, Poland.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1989 the applicant’s father lodged an application with the Myślenice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for distribution of the inheritance from his late wife. The applicant was a participant in the proceedings.
6.  Between October 1989 and December 1992 the court held four hearings.
7.  On 19 February 1993 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained.
8.  On 26 May 1993 four of the participants challenged the expert opinion.
9.  On 2 November 1994 the applicant submitted her own proposal to the court for distribution of inheritance.
10.  On 15 November 1994 the expert submitted his new opinion.
11.  At a hearing on 19 January 1995 the court proposed that the participants conclude a friendly settlement. Only two of the participants accepted the court’s proposal.
12.  At a hearing on 23 March 1995 the court ordered that new expert evidence be obtained. It also ordered the participants to pay an advance to cover the costs of the preparation of an expert report..
13.  On 17 September 1997 the court decided that, as the participants had failed to comply with the order of 23 March 1995, the costs of the preparation of expert opinions would be temporarily covered by the court.
14.  Between 17 January 1996 and 16 July 1998, J.M., one of the participants in the proceedings, unsuccessfully challenged the presiding judge four times.
15.  On 2 October 1998 and 4 March 1999 the court appointed experts to prepare opinions on agriculture and forestry. The experts submitted their reports on 12 November 1998 and 21 March 1999 respectively.
16.  On November 1999 the court held a hearing.
17.  On 30 November 1999 the Myślenice District Court gave judgment.
18.  On 27 March 2000 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
19.  On 28 June 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to deal with her cassation appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Płock, Poland.
5.  On 7 March 1992 the applicant asked the Częstochowa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for a payment order against the “Westa” insurance company.
6.  The court refused the application on 22 June 1992.
7.  On 15 September 1992, on the applicant’s appeal, the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) remitted the case.
8.  On 15 December 1992 the District Court upheld its original decision.
9.  On 25 March 1993 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal.
10.  The case was subsequently examined by the District Court in ordinary civil proceedings.
11.  On 7 July 1993 the court stayed the proceedings because bankruptcy proceedings had been initiated against the defendant (that decision is obligatory under Polish civil procedure).
12.  On 14 December 1993 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.
13.  The applicant unsuccessfully asked the court several times to resume the proceedings.
14.   The court resumed the proceedings on 13 September 1996.
15.  Hearings were scheduled for 23 October 1996 and 8 July 1997.
16.  On 4 August 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. It also ordered the applicant to pay an advance sum of money to cover the costs of the preparation of an expert report.
17.  On 16 April 1998 the court stayed the proceedings because the applicant had not paid the advance sum required.
18.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He maintained that, according to the established case-law of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), a party’s failure to pay in advance costs of an expert opinion is not a sufficient ground for staying the proceedings.
19.  On 29 July 1998 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
20.  On 30 September 1999 the District Court resumed the proceedings and, on the same day, partly granted the applicant’s claim.
21.  On 12 September 2000 the Regional Court amended the first-instance judgment and partly granted the claim. Due to the value of the claim a cassation appeal was not available in this case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Belitskoye, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On 24 April 1998 the Dobropolye Town Court ordered the Belitskaya Mine, a State enterprise, to pay the applicant UAH 15,675.40 in compensation for an occupational disability and for moral damage. The applicant failed to inform the Court whether he appealed against this judgment or not.
6.  In July 1998 the Dobropolye Town Bailiffs’ Service opened the enforcement proceedings.
7.  Between 1998 and 2003 the judgment was enforced in instalments, the final payment being transferred on 10 November 2003.
8.  On 12 November 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Ciechanów, Poland.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1988 a certain T.M. lodged a claim against the applicant with the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She sought a division of property.
6.  On 26 April 1989 the court held a hearing.
7.  On 24 January 1992 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. The expert’s report was submitted to the court on 26 May 1992.
8.  On 21 April 1993 the court gave judgment.
9.  The applicant appealed on 26 June 1993.
10.  On 22 April 1994 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
11.  On 6 February 1996 the applicant sent a letter to the court, asking for a hearing date to be set.
12.  On 3 October 1997 the court decided that new expert evidence be obtained.
13.   The court held hearings on 4 May 1998 and 22 December 2000.
14.  On 28 February 2001 the Rzeszów District Court gave judgment.
15.  The applicant appealed on 5 April 2001.
16.  On 26 June 2001 the Rzeszów Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Antalya.
5.  On 9 July 1997 the General Directorate of National Airports expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the relevant amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 20 March 1998 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.
7.  On 16 June 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.
8.  On 20 December 1999 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicant an additional compensation of 3,184,691,136 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision running from 18 December 1997, the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred to the General Directorate of National Airports.
9.  On 4 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the First‑instance court.
10.  On 18 May 2000 the Court of Cassation rejected the parties’ request for rectification.
11.  On 20 July 2000 the General Directorate of National Airports paid the amount of TRL 7,636,830,000 to the applicant.
12.  After the application was communicated to the Government, the applicant was requested to submit his observations on the merits of the case and also her just satisfaction claims until 23 March 2005. However, he failed to submit them within the required time-limit. He did not request any extension of time, either.
13.  By registered letter of 27 May 2005 the applicant was informed that the Court had not received his observations and just satisfaction claims and that the Court might strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application.
14.  On 8 August 2005 the applicant submitted his observations containing his just satisfaction claims.
6.  The applicant was born in 1972. She is detained in Gebze Prison.
7.  On 17 September 1993 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of being a member of Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left), and was taken into custody. During the operation, the police officers gathered guns and illegal documents from the flat where they had captured the applicant. The applicant had also two forged identity cards in her possession.
8.  On 1 October 1993 she was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. Subsequently, the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
9.  On 31 December 1993 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court against twenty-five persons, including the applicant, and requested that the applicant be punished pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code with the death penalty.
10.  Throughout the criminal proceedings, either on its own motion or at the applicant’s request, the Istanbul State Security Court examined and ordered the applicant’s continued detention. The court relied on “the serious nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged, the state of evidence, the content of the case file, and the duration of the detention” when further detaining the applicant. On two occasions on 3 November 1997 and 5 May 2000, the court also noted that the case was due to be decided soon.
11.  On 17 December 2003 the applicant was convicted of the offence as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment.
12.  On 1 April 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction, and remitted the case back to the Istanbul State Security Court.
13.  The case is still pending before the Istanbul State Security Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in İstanbul.
5.  On 14 December 1995 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel İdare Müdürlüğü) expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the relevant amount was paid to her when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 20 February 1998 the Gebze Civil Court of First-instance awarded her an additional compensation of 3,189,159,368 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision.
7.  On 24 November 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
8.  On 2 March 1999 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for rectification.
9.  On 6 October 1999 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration paid the amount of TRL 7,049,472,900 to the applicant, interest included.
10.  On 13 September 1999 the applicant lodged an application with the Court.
11.  After the application was communicated to the Government, the applicant was requested to submit her observations on the merits of the case and also her just satisfaction claims until 9 September 2004. However, she failed to submit her observations within the required time-limit. She did not request any extension of time, either.
12.  By registered letter of 29 May 2005 the applicant was informed that the Court had not received her observations and just satisfaction claims and that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
13.  On 7 June 2005 the applicant submitted her observations on the merits of the case. However, she failed to submit her claims for just satisfaction.
8.  The applicants Ms Layihe Biç, Mr Resul Biç, Ms Zehra Biç and Ms Hamdiye Biç, were born in 1962, 1982, 1984 and 1993 respectively and live in the village of Yukarıharım, attached to the province of Diyarbakır.
9.  On 13 October 1993 İhsan Biç was arrested by security forces in Bismil on suspicion of having participated in an attack on a military convoy, organised by the PKK. In his statement to the gendarmes, he confessed to being a member of the PKK and having participated in the attack against the military convoy.
10.  On 8 November 1993 İhsan Biç was brought before the public prosecutor. The same day he was brought before the investigating judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who subsequently ordered his detention on remand. İhsan Biç was accordingly sent to Batman prison.
11.  On 1 December 1993 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against İhsan Biç in the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In his indictment, he accused him of membership of an illegal organisation, of aiding and abetting the members of this organisation and of having participated in an attack that had been aimed against the security forces. He asked the court to sentence him under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
12.  On 19 September 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that İhsan Biç had taken part in any armed attack, but found him guilty of membership of an illegal organisation. He was accordingly sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The court further ordered his transfer to the Diyarbakır Prison.
13.  On 25 September 1995 İhsan Biç appealed.
14.  On 2 October 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the State Security Court and sent the case file back for re-examination.
15.  The proceedings recommenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The first-instance court decided to keep İhsan Biç in detention on remand during the course of the trials. While the proceedings continued, İhsan Biç was twice operated upon a stomach complaint. At a later date, he was also diagnosed with hepatitis B and subsequently died in the hospital on 9 October 1999 due to liver cirrhosis.
16.  The Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against İhsan Biç after his death.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Mersin.
5.  The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicant in İçel in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to him when the expropriation took place.
6.  On 26 December 1995 the applicant requested increased compensation. Accordingly, on 13 November 1996 the Mersin Civil Court of First Instance awarded him additional compensation of 4,500,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 35,976 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 26 December 1995.
7.  On 2 February 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 13 November 1996.
8.  On 13 April 1998 the administration paid the applicant TRL 8,475,906,000 (approximately EUR 31,684) in additional compensation, together with interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Mersin.
5.  The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicant in İçel in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to her when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 31 December 1993 the Mersin Civil Court of First Instance awarded her additional compensation of 238,172,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 14,341 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 22 June 1993.
7.  On 15 December 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 31 December 1993.
8.  On 21 April 1998 the administration paid the applicant TRL 651,598,000 (approximately EUR 2,391) in additional compensation, together with interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Mersin.
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicant in İçel in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to him when the expropriation took place.
5.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 22 February 1995 the Mersin Civil Court of First Instance awarded him additional compensation of 204,787,320 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 3,900 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 14 December 1993.
6.  On 16 December 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 22 February 1995.
7.  On 16 April 1998 the administration paid the applicant TRL 545,269,000 (approximately EUR 2,020) in additional compensation, together with interest.
8.  On 21 January 1998 the decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicant.